Background
Police encountered Melvin Maurice Jackson at approximately 11:15 p.m. in a Benton Harbor area associated with violent crime. An FBI agent reported seeing Jackson wearing a dark hoodie and ski mask, keeping his hands in the hoodie’s front pocket, where a bulge was visible. When a detective opened the door of a marked patrol vehicle to speak with him, Jackson immediately ran. He continued fleeing after being ordered to stop, jumped a fence, and escaped. Officers recovered two cellphones and a handgun along his route, and Jackson’s name appeared on one phone.
After his arrest, Jackson admitted that he was the person who fled and that he ran because he possessed the firearm. The district court bound him over on firearm offenses, carrying a concealed weapon, resisting or obstructing a police officer, and felony-firearm charges. Jackson sought to quash the resisting-or-obstructing charge, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to order him to stop. The circuit court denied the motion, and Jackson appealed by leave granted. He also challenged the preliminary-examination admission of the FBI agent’s report about the bulge.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the officers had reasonable suspicion when the detective ordered Jackson to stop. Although presence in a high-crime area and wearing a ski mask in December were not independently sufficient, the totality of the circumstances included the late hour, the location, Jackson’s clothing, the reported bulge and placement of his hands, the detective’s experience with unlawfully armed people in that area, and—most significantly—Jackson’s immediate flight upon the opening of the marked patrol vehicle’s door.
The court distinguished cases in which police detained a person before the person fled. Here, Jackson ran before the officers spoke to him, commanded him to stop, or otherwise detained him, so his flight could contribute to reasonable suspicion supporting the later stop command. The court also held that the FBI agent’s report was not hearsay because it was admitted to show what information the detective possessed and why he acted, not to prove that a bulge actually existed. In any event, the court concluded that Jackson’s flight and the detective’s personal observations independently supplied sufficient competent evidence for the bindover.
Key Takeaways
- Unprovoked flight may contribute substantially to reasonable suspicion when it occurs before police issue a command or effect a detention.
- Facts that are individually innocent or insufficient—including presence in a high-crime area and seasonal face covering—may collectively support reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances.
- An out-of-court statement communicated to an officer may be admitted to establish the information known to the officer and explain the officer’s conduct, rather than for the truth of the statement.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the timing analysis for investigatory stops: courts assess reasonable suspicion when the officer commands the person to stop, and conduct occurring before that command—including immediate flight from an attempted consensual encounter—may be considered. By contrast, flight after an unsupported detention cannot retroactively justify the seizure.
The opinion also illustrates how information relayed by another identified law-enforcement officer can enter the reasonable-suspicion analysis without being admitted for its truth, provided it is offered to establish what the acting officer knew.